Club condemns Adelaide Crows player for allegedly sharing an image of a woman without permission

[cmndstab]

They would actually be dragging themselves through the mud, though.

Presumably this is why the woman in question doesn't want to take any further action. She doesn't want a spotlight on her, and fair enough.

But there are plenty of people who would say, **** that, I'm going to the media with this.

Not only is it a pretty scummy thing for the player to do, it's stupid. You're just begging to have your reputation and career trashed.

 

[BRL121]

Presumably this is why the woman in question doesn't want to take any further action. She doesn't want a spotlight on her, and fair enough.

But there are plenty of people who would say, **** that, I'm going to the media with this.

Not only is it a pretty scummy thing for the player to do, it's stupid. You're just begging to have your reputation and career trashed.

Absolutely correct on all counts, but the woman is also stupid for iniitiating/agreeing to this in the first place.

 

[1970crow]

Yep

When I take and send a dick pick, I do so knowing the recipient may at any point in time forward it on to someone else.

In fact I expect it to happen.

Had a real life friend known as tampon schlong too. Weird thing is bloke was prolific, not sure how many repeat customers though. And you know those navy blokes.

 

[Samcro24]

The way I look at it, if it was a nude photo the media would be using words more than just a photo.

Sharing “just a photo” isn’t newsworthy or condemnable is it?

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

Strange for this story to come out now..... I guess that's what you get for asking the AFL to investigate a dodgy umpire.......

Bevo always keeps receipts

 

[Cleric]

Sharing “just a photo” isn’t newsworthy or condemnable is it?

In today's world, i wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't.
If it was nude I'm sure they would be making a much bigger deal of it

 

[Toucan Ocean]

Didn't take long for this thread to go to victim blaming....heck

Plenty of that, in addition to ignorance of both the law and how young people navigate relationships (sending nudes is a very commonplace activity, for better or worse.)

The following law in SA focuses on distribution without consent (noting that an 'invasive image' in this scenario includes one taken with the consent of the person, i.e. any nude photo sent to the player with consent by the woman would still be an 'invasive image' for the purposes of this offence):

SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 1953 - SECT 26C

www5.austlii.edu.au

SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 1953 - SECT 26C​

26C—Distribution of invasive image

(1) A person who distributes an invasive image of another person, knowing or having reason to believe that the other person—

(a) does not consent to that particular distribution of the image; or

(b) does not consent to that particular distribution of the image and does not consent to distribution of the image generally,

is guilty of an offence.

Where the victim is over 17 years of age, the maximum penalty is $10,000 or two years' imprisonment.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

New current number 9 and former number 25??

I wouldn't jump to this conclusion based on them being business partners.

Problem is now most of the squad are tarnished as there will be this speculation.

 

[1970crow]

Mate... I think it's pretty reasonable to expect that people won't share your nude/explicit images around with other people without your consent. Agreeing to send raunchy selfies to someone doesn't authorise them to circulate those images, and there are laws about that very thing for a reason.

In any event, sounds like it's a dead story at this point. Hopefully the players learn their lesson. In this case it sounds like the woman involved just wants the whole thing to go away, but in another case the victim would be well within their rights to drag the player and the club through the mud.

Quite clearly, my point is that the law, itself, is ridiculous. It’s total waste of taxpayer resources. If you consent to an image being recorded, naked or otherwise, then the rights of that image choice belong to the recorder.

Using ‘law’ as a basis for a view is purely for simpletons. Not long ago assisted suicide was technically murder, law changed, did your view change with it? Prohibition? Legalised marijuana? Do your views genuinely flip flop based upon the enactment of legislation?

Whether it’s Nick Reiwoldt, Nick Dal Santo or the chick in question here, if you don’t want images being shared, don’t authorise them in the first place.

I do accept that the threat of release for personal gain, financial or otherwise, must be against the law. But I’d imagine that would have been covered under pre-existing legislation.

 

[Toucan Ocean]

Quite clearly, my point is that the law, itself, is ridiculous. It’s total waste of taxpayer resources. If you consent to an image being recorded, naked or otherwise, then the rights of that image choice belong to the recorder.

Ridiculous or not, it is the law. The rights you're referring to don't exist in this scenario and for good reason: it would place the potential victim at high risk with no recourse as to where that image is distributed (e.g. all over the internet, on a billboard, shared to their work colleagues, etc.)

The laws exist to protect individuals from distribution without consent. What's ridiculous about that?

 

[cmndstab]

Quite clearly, my point is that the law, itself, is ridiculous. It’s total waste of taxpayer resources. If you consent to an image being recorded, naked or otherwise, then the rights of that image choice belong to the recorder.

I disagree, and there are countless scenarios where you could agree to something being recorded for a specific purpose, and reasonably expect that it won't be used outside of that purpose. Everything from a preschool using photos of your kid for marketing purposes without consent, to circulating a sex tape filmed for private use without consent. It's clear that "you let me record it so you waive all rights" as a one-size-fits-all approach is inappropriate.

I didn't say it's an issue because it's illegal. I said there are laws about it for a reason.

 

[Executive Landlord]

I think the delisted player being referred to isn't interested in women anyway

 

[1970crow]

Ridiculous or not, it is the law. The rights you're referring to don't exist in this scenario and for good reason: it would place the potential victim at high risk with no recourse as to where that image is distributed (e.g. all over the internet, on a billboard, shared to their work colleagues, etc.)

The laws exist to protect individuals from distribution without consent. What's ridiculous about that?

What’s your view on assisted suicide? Did it change the microsecond following the law change?

 

[feenix67]

I think the delisted player being referred to isn't interested in women anyway

What does someone's sexual preferences have to do with anything?

 

[1970crow]

I disagree, and there are countless scenarios where you could agree to something being recorded for a specific purpose, and reasonably expect that it won't be used outside of that purpose. Everything from a preschool using photos of your kid for marketing purposes without consent, to circulating a sex tape filmed for private use without consent. It's clear that "you let me record it so you waive all rights" as a one-size-fits-all approach is inappropriate.

I didn't say it's an issue because it's illegal. I said there are laws about it for a reason.

Marketing purposes is ‘for profit’, that’s already protected unless you’ve agreed to a release in a contract somewhere. Possibly without realising it. Maybe you’re not pretty enough, which I am, to have had to sign these releases.

Voluntary assisted suicide was against the law, I presume you advocated against the change? Murder is a law and it was there for a reason.

 

[cmndstab]

Marketing purposes is ‘for profit’, that’s already protected unless you’ve agreed to a release in a contract somewhere. Possibly without realising it. Maybe you’re not pretty enough, which I am, to have had to sign these releases.

Voluntary assisted suicide was against the law, I presume you advocated against the change? Murder is a law and it was there for a reason.

I run a not-for-profit sports club for which I derive no income whatsoever, and I can assure you, I am also not allowed to use images of players without their consent. It's not just about profit.

I'm not sure why you've got this bee in your bonnet about voluntary assisted suicide. I'm not saying that the presence of a law makes something right or wrong. However, many laws are just and appropriate, and I think that the law around sharing private images is one of those.

I don't feel like I have a nuanced enough view of voluntary assisted suicide to add much to any discussion about it. In general, I am against unnecessary suffering, but I imagine there are all kinds of edge cases that need to be handled with care. It's not really relevant to his situation, is it?

 

[beartoo]

Storm in a teacup promoted by the Peartiser. Seems the club dealt with it correctly last January. Media scumbags.

 

[Scorpus]

So which AFL executive leaked this resolved issue to the media, coincidentally after a club director publicly highlighted umpire corruption?

 

[1990crow]

So which AFL executive leaked this resolved issue to the media, coincidentally after a club director publicly highlighted umpire corruption?

Certainly shows how the AFL think regarding the Crows.

 

[feenix67]

Certainly shows how the AFL think regarding the Crows.

Given we are AFL operated, it's amazing how much strength they believe our brand must have, that they can keep hammering it the way they do. It's almost as if they want to undermine us to weaken the leverage the club and it's members have come 2028...

 

[1970crow]

I run a not-for-profit sports club for which I derive no income whatsoever, and I can assure you, I am also not allowed to use images of players without their consent. It's not just about profit.

I'm not sure why you've got this bee in your bonnet about voluntary assisted suicide. I'm not saying that the presence of a law makes something right or wrong. However, many laws are just and appropriate, and I think that the laws around sharing private images is one of those.

I don't feel like I have a nuanced enough view of voluntary assisted suicide to add much to any discussion about it. In general, I am against unnecessary suffering, but I imagine there are all kinds of edge cases that need to be handled with care. It's not really relevant to his situation, is it?

Jeez, you’re going backwards. ‘Not for profit’ is a ATO tax status, it doesn’t mean that you don’t engage in profitable activities. All it means is that your constitution doesn’t provide for winding up funds to be shared to its members and must be otherwise forwarded to a similarly constituted club. Have you read your constitution? Did you ever wonder why that clause is in there?

But I agree, some/most laws are just and reasonable. I justdon’t agree that this is one of them. There should always be a personal responsibility aspect. But your involvement should always be considered at law. If there’s any sniff of financial or coercive benefit, no worries, go hard on the perp, but otherwise, it’s an absurd law that is already covered in other statutes.

 

[1990crow]

Given we are AFL operated, it's amazing how much strength they believe our brand must have, that they can keep hammering it the way they do. It's almost as if they want to undermine us to weaken the leverage the club and it's members have come 2028...

I suspect the 2011-2012 Port Adelaide lives in AFLs memory bank.
Weaken the Crows, make sure Port don't go bankrupt again.

 

[Toucan Ocean]

But I agree, some/most laws are just and reasonable. I justdon’t agree that this is one of them. There should always be a personal responsibility aspect. But your involvement should always be considered at law. If there’s any sniff of financial or coercive benefit, no worries, go hard on the perp, but otherwise, it’s an absurd law that I already covered in other statutes.

At this point, you're being deliberately obtuse in ignoring the harm these laws seek to address.

There's a lot of pointless legislation but I don't think is an example.

 

[1970crow]

At this point, you're being deliberately obtuse in ignoring the harm these laws seek to address.

There's a lot of pointless legislation but I don't think is an example.

NFI how I’m being obtuse, would have thought my position is crystal clear. Are life lessons outside the law now? If you don’t want images of yourself distributed, don’t authorise their capture. Don’t want to get hit by a car, look both ways and be careful crossing the road. Individual’s actions should matter, the law should recognise that.

 

[Pugsley]

Presumably this is why the woman in question doesn't want to take any further action. She doesn't want a spotlight on her, and fair enough.

But there are plenty of people who would say, **** that, I'm going to the media with this.

Not only is it a pretty scummy thing for the player to do, it's stupid. You're just begging to have your reputation and career trashed.

Josh Bootsma knows this well.